Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
Thorsten -Original Message- From:.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi] Sent: 02 December 2010 10:58 To: vivian.mea...@lineone.net; FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating My point is your rating was based on an assumption that was totally incorrect: that the developer had made a reasonable effort to put the right gauges and levers in the right place. Do you make a similar assumption about the FDM? That it is approximately right? Is there much value in such a rating? Vivian, I am sorry if I'm now taking a little more of a lecturing attitude - I do not know how much you know about mathematical statistics, but I have the impression you are completely missing the issue here. What the rating represents is a screening procedure. A screening procedure is used to quickly assess a large number of something, to single out a subset with given properties. For instance, you might screen a population for breast cancer. Screening procedures are designed to process large numbers, i.e. they do not make use of all available diagnostic tools and replace detailed knowledge by plausibility, because usually applying detailed knowledge and detailed testing requires time and resources which are not available (a detailed cancer test requires you to be hospitalized for maybe 1-2 days, say that (optimistically) costs 200$, to do it for 100 Million people once per year is 20 Billion per year (hm...)- so maybe you'd rather test less accurately for 5$ per person). Screenings therefore often test proxies, rather than the real property you're interested in. For any given instance of the something, it is always true that a detailed test has more accurate results. It is also true that a screening produces both false positives (i.e. assigns a property to something which does in fact not have that property) and false negatives (i.e. does not assign the property to something which does in fact have it). It is not required (nor reasonable to require) that a screening procedure is always correct or that the plausibility assumptions underlying it are always fulfilled. What is required is that the screening procedure is right most of the time (dependent on the problem, you want to minimize the rate of false positives, of false negatives or both - in the cancer example, it it better to send a few more people to detailed testing than to miss too many real cancer cases, so you try to minimize the false negatives). So, what you have shown with the KC-135 is a case in which a default assumption was wrong, but in which the scheme still (for whatever reason) gave a good answer. That's not very problematic (one wouldn't consider it problematic if a screening test picks up a cancer for the wrong reason if there in fact is a cancer). Right now you have shown me one example in which the default assumption does not work. If there are no more, it means it has an accuracy of 99.75%. If you can find as many as 40 planes with a similar history in which the designer did not care about cockpit layout, the default assumption would still have an accuracy of 90%. That's pretty good to me - and the chance that the default assumption does not work but the result is still reasonable is even better than that! The Concorde is in some sense way more problematic, because it is actually a 'wrong' result - a false negative (i.e. a high-quality plane gets a low rating). But here precisely the same question arises - what is the rate of false negatives? What is the actual probability that this happens to a second plane in the sample? Of course I don't factually know that (because I have no detailed test data for all aircraft), but I can give an estimate based on the sub-sample of planes I know better - this is where statistics comes in (I could even compute error margins for that estimate, although I have not done that yet). And that estimate suggests that the rate of false positives and negatives is low (about 2.5% for a deviation of 5 points between quality and visuals - which means that it works better than that 97.5% of the time). Again, this is a number which I consider entirely reasonable. It doesn't matter if the rating works in every instance perfectly, or if the assumptions capture every instance correctly. On average, the results are reasonable and they give you an overview. Having an overview picture of something with a 10% error margin is better than having no overview at all with 1% error margin (screening 90% of a population for cancer with a 10% rate of false positives and negatives is way more effective than testing 1% of the population in detail with a 1% failure rate). *shrugs* Codify any testing scheme you like, and I bet I can construct a case which is somehow not adequately treated in it. It doesn't matter that I can do that - it's the rate with which it actually happens that
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
Nevertheless, I am not persuaded. Your rating is based on: Four legs good, two legs bad!. While that may be generally true, it will throw up many anomalies, and the problem is you neither know which these are, nor how many, because you haven't and can't properly test your hypothesis. First of all, I'm not making (and haven't made) any strong statements about the accuracy of FDMs, because the number of planes for which I have an idea what that number should be is small, and I think there is a general consensus that to judge an FDM adequately is lots of work. My statements about 'quality' and the correlation with 'beauty' are chiefly based on modelling of systems, instrumentation and implemented procedures - these I can judge better. It is simply not true that I can't test my hypothesis with regard to instrumentation - I have flown about 40 aircraft with some regularity since installing Flightgear, I have taken a look at real cockpit photographs for some of them, I have read their documentation and have knowledge of what the different buttons do, so I have a fair idea about how detailed their instrumentation is modelled. My hypothesis for fairly detailed planes is tested on that subsample of 10% of the available aircraft. In addition, there are about 40+ aircraft for which the lack of instrumentation and systems is fairly obvious (i.e. I see no gauge in the cockpit...) even without spending a longer time in the aircraft. For these I likewise claim knowledge of the quality of systems which is implemented. So I do know about 20% of the total number of aircraft in sufficient detail to estimate a correlation. I think a fair statement is 'A rating for the detail of instrumentation and systems has a chance of 80% to be no more than 2 points different from a rating of visual detail, i.e. there is an 80% chance that the visual rating and the final rating (averaged over visuals and instrumentation details) do not differ by more than 1 point. Let's look at a few examples (not brought up by myself): *** Stuart's rating of the c172p: 4/5 rescaled to a 10 point scale, that's an 8/10 where I have 7/10 - check. *** The KC-135 I'm not sure what your quality rating from 0-10 would be - probably not really zero, so I assume it's 1 or 2, so averaged with the visuals that's about 2 or 2.5 where I have rated 3 - yes. *** Sopwith Camel Does it win the ratings war? Indeed it does - it received 10/10. *** Lightning Assuming you'd rate the FDM and systems 10, the average with beauty would be something like 9.7 or 9.5, dependent if I take the FDM into consideration. My rating is 9. *** p51d-jsbsim Hal self-rated 7.5/10, I rated the p51d with 6 - that would pretty much fit already, except that the p51d-jsbsim is a bit more detailed than the p51d, so I would rate that 7 (well, sure I can say this after the fact...). Yes, fits as well. *** It seems you are bothered more by the fact that the F-14b is rated above the Lightning, but here you are asking too much of the test. The test can pick out both planes as 'has high probability of having very detailed systems and above average FDM', but if you want to know which of them is better in detail, the accuracy is not sufficient. The correlation between 'beauty' and 'quality' is there, but it is not that strong, correlation isn't equality. Which is why I am very much in favour of bringing in additional information (like the developer self-rating Stuart suggested). My point is not that rating based on visual detail is perfect and we should leave it at that - my point is that in practice it works quite a bit better than a mere beauty contest. If I recall my stats correctly, your assumption that there is a causal relationship between attractiveness of the cockpit and a high realism is unproven. In our statistically small sample, I think it will throw up as many wrong results as correct ones. Concorde is but one example. I have not assumed a causal relationship (not do I need to). I observe in practive a correlation, I utilize it, I don't need to understand it to do so (I have given some speculation where it comes from though...). Assuming that Stuart and Hal did the self-rating 'fair', and assuming you did not know my numbers when you picked your examples, the system has (within its accuracy) in fact not thrown as many wrong results as correct ones. From the above, it has managed well with 5/5 examples, 5/6 is you add the Concorde - but that was cherry-picked by myself as counterexample (!) and therefore doesn't really count for a statistical test of a hypothesis. So, under the reasonable assumption that you didn't pick planes randomly but that you picked planes assuming they would be likely to be counterexamples to my rating, you have to grant me that the system has dealt with them rather well and that your supposed counterexamples have in fact not turned out to be as many wrong results as correct ones. * Thorsten
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Thorsten R. wrote: Stuart wrote: In the great tradition of re-inventing the wheek, I'd propose 4 criteria: - FDM - Systems - Cockpit - External Model. It sounds very neat and if a large fraction of aircraft ends up rated that way, then I'll be the the first to admit that it works better than my scheme because it contains more information on other aspects. The main problems I see is: * it relies on a large number of people (= almost every developer should do it), otherwise if you create a list and people use it to pick aircraft, they will pick based on who bothered to self-rate, not based on what is good I think if we intended to include these ratings on the download page, developers would be very keen on rating their aircraft. After all, we create them to share with the community, and this will help encourage people to try different aircraft. * different people may have different ideas what for example an 'accurately modelled cockpit' is - the same way as right now 'alpha' and 'beta' ratings on the download page mean very different things dependent on developer So - let's simply see what happens! For comparison, here is a draft for how I would rate systems. I think an important idea is that a model should get full points whenever it is complete, i.e. implements all there is - so gliders are not punished for the lack of an engine startup procedure. In retrospect, I think my points system for systems isn't very well thought out so should be replaced with a sensible object ranking that doesn't discriminate against simpler aircraft. However, I'd like to differentiate between the straight instrumentation, which I think should be included in the cockpit rating, and the systems themselves. So, taking the ranking you proposed and modifying them slightly: 0 - No controllable systems: engine is always on, generic radio, 1 - Generic engine start/stop (}}s), correct size/number of fuel tanks, generic (untuned) autopilot, working flaps/gear 2 - Working electrical system, fuel feed cockpit controls, stable autopilot 3 - Accurate startup procedure, tuned autopilot with cockpit controls matching real aircraft systems, generic failure modelling (Vne, +ve/-ve G, gear limits) 4 - Primary aircraft-specific systems modelled (aero-tow, radar, GPWS). User able to follow normal PoH checklists (e.g. startup, shutdown) in entirety 5 - Some aircraft-specific failure modes implemented (e.g. flame-out, inverted engine limitations). Some emergency procedures implemented (RAT, emergency gear release), able to follow some emergency PoH checklists in entirety. I think this gives a fairly obvious progression in quality that would match how aircraft developers are likely to develop, and allows a glider to be rated accurately. -Stuart -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem updating fgdata from mapserver
Martin Spott wrote: Yup. The new machine is already alive (the web map should be available) but I'm still awaiting a chance to sync the latest changes from the old hardware before I'm going to declare the transition as being complete. Ok, I _think_ the GIT mirror on the new machine is functional now (at least using git-URL's), please test and enjoy, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] (no subject)
Martin Spott wrote: Formerly there were _multiple_ different priority lists hardcoded into the source code. This has now been separated into two text files to be referenced via --usgs-map= and --priorities=, [...] http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/gitweb.pl?p=terragear-cs;a=blob;f=src/BuildTiles/Main/usgsmap.txt http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/gitweb.pl?p=terragear-cs;a=blob;f=src/BuildTiles/Clipper/default_priorities.txt Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] carrier questions
I have a couple questions about the Nimitz for the carrier folks: 1. What is the exact angle offset of the landing deck from the carrier heading. It appears to be about 8 degrees, but maybe I'd like to be more accurate than that if possible. 2. What is the ideal glide slope angle for flying the approach (most runway approaches are 3 degrees). Thanks! Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] carrier questions
1. 9 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier 2. 3-4 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_US_Navy_carrier_operations /JanM 2010/12/3 Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com: I have a couple questions about the Nimitz for the carrier folks: 1. What is the exact angle offset of the landing deck from the carrier heading. It appears to be about 8 degrees, but maybe I'd like to be more accurate than that if possible. 2. What is the ideal glide slope angle for flying the approach (most runway approaches are 3 degrees). Thanks! Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/ -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] carrier questions
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Jan Mattsson wrote: 1. 9 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier 2. 3-4 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_US_Navy_carrier_operations Hi Jan, Thanks for your reply. What I'm wondering though is for the FlightGear Nimitz, what glide slope approach path puts me in the sweet spot of the FLOLS? And for whatever it's worth, visually it appears that the landing deck is offset closer to 8 degrees. That lines me up a lot better than 9 degrees. But I'd love to know the exact angle for the FlightGear Nimitz model so I don't have to fudge things and guess. Thanks! Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] carrier questions
Hi Curtis, Have a look at http://maps.google.com/maps?t=hq=37.070833,-76.48ie=UTF8ll=36.99374,-76.447989spn=0.003051,0.006866z=18 IMHO this is a nimitz class carrier, top down. I measured with gimp: It is exaktly 9 degrees. ;-) cheers Olaf Am 03.12.2010 20:28, schrieb Curtis Olson: On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Jan Mattsson wrote: 1. 9 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier 2. 3-4 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_US_Navy_carrier_operations Hi Jan, Thanks for your reply. What I'm wondering though is for the FlightGear Nimitz, what glide slope approach path puts me in the sweet spot of the FLOLS? And for whatever it's worth, visually it appears that the landing deck is offset closer to 8 degrees. That lines me up a lot better than 9 degrees. But I'd love to know the exact angle for the FlightGear Nimitz model so I don't have to fudge things and guess. Thanks! Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/ http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] carrier questions
Le 03/12/2010 20:28, Curtis Olson a écrit : On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Jan Mattsson wrote: 1. 9 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier 2. 3-4 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_US_Navy_carrier_operations Hi Jan, Thanks for your reply. What I'm wondering though is for the FlightGear Nimitz, what glide slope approach path puts me in the sweet spot of the FLOLS? after a look in Models/Geometry/Nimitz/Models/flos.xml, the optimal path is 3.5 degres, and in nimitz.xml, the flos got an offset of 8 degres, not sure if that correspond to the deck orientation. jano -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] carrier questions
Hi Curt, Yes the centerline offset for the Nimitz/FLOLS is 8 deg, and the optimum glideslope is 3.5. The FLOLS visible glideslope arc is 1.7 deg. If you fly the ball you should hit # 3 wire. I got that from a reference I have here. Vivian. -Original Message- From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com] Sent: 03 December 2010 19:28 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] carrier questions On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Jan Mattsson wrote: 1. 9 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier 2. 3-4 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_US_Navy_carrier_operations Hi Jan, Thanks for your reply. What I'm wondering though is for the FlightGear Nimitz, what glide slope approach path puts me in the sweet spot of the FLOLS? And for whatever it's worth, visually it appears that the landing deck is offset closer to 8 degrees. That lines me up a lot better than 9 degrees. But I'd love to know the exact angle for the FlightGear Nimitz model so I don't have to fudge things and guess. Thanks! Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/ http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] carrier questions
Hi Curt, Found it: http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/CV_environ/00-80T-104--LSO%20NATOPS.pdf This might help, or you could just fly the ball Vivian -Original Message- From: Vivian Meazza [mailto:vivian.mea...@lineone.net] Sent: 03 December 2010 20:22 To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] carrier questions Hi Curt, Yes the centerline offset for the Nimitz/FLOLS is 8 deg, and the optimum glideslope is 3.5. The FLOLS visible glideslope arc is 1.7 deg. If you fly the ball you should hit # 3 wire. I got that from a reference I have here. Vivian. -Original Message- From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com] Sent: 03 December 2010 19:28 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] carrier questions On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Jan Mattsson wrote: 1. 9 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier 2. 3-4 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_US_Navy_carrier_operations Hi Jan, Thanks for your reply. What I'm wondering though is for the FlightGear Nimitz, what glide slope approach path puts me in the sweet spot of the FLOLS? And for whatever it's worth, visually it appears that the landing deck is offset closer to 8 degrees. That lines me up a lot better than 9 degrees. But I'd love to know the exact angle for the FlightGear Nimitz model so I don't have to fudge things and guess. Thanks! Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/ http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] OSQA - statck overflow
hi guys, I had to evaluate this stack-overflow like system for a client.. So I installed one for flightgear for evaluation.. it here atmo http://faq.freeflightsim.org/ Its easily customisable with the admin interface.. and its in bootstrap mode at the moment which means that the votes can be nudged for population. Whoevers up for some admin lets me know, you need to sign up and then I need to tip the superuser flag (dont know where that is atmo). regards pete -- What happens now with your Lotus Notes apps - do you make another costly upgrade, or settle for being marooned without product support? Time to move off Lotus Notes and onto the cloud with Force.com, apps are easier to build, use, and manage than apps on traditional platforms. Sign up for the Lotus Notes Migration Kit to learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/salesforce-d2d___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] An introduction and what happened
Hello all, I hope you will excuse the intrusion it was suggested I make my way in here, more on that in a bit. I'm a FlightGear user and a terrrible one at that. I just enjoy playing with the interfacing (simpit if you will) so really a hardware guy and have no claim to be a programmer just a bit of PIC and altera. Dont mind learning just havn't done much as of yet. Hopefully I can be redeemed a bit by my networking skills, am a bit of a cisco junkie. Anyway heres what happened my day job Im a broadcast engineer but just so happen to work in the same building as our corprate data center. They were cleaning out and I inherited an IBM x455 cluster. Its 4 chassis each equipped with 4 1.5Ghz Itanium 2's and 16GB ram for a system total of 16 Itanium 2's and 64GB ram. I misquoted on another list thought 8GB per CPU but was 8GB per bank. Sooo they need to serve a more noble (and fun) purpose than the mundane task of traffic and billing. Being servers they arnt exactly equipped for graphic apps. It was suggested I jump on here and see what kind of background tasks they would be good for. As of now they have win 2003 loaded but arnt licensed, Ive been looking at linux but not sure how well if at all it will handle the clustering. These were in service untill earlier this year, yep they needed more power and went to blade centers. New cost of the cluster in 06 was $90,000 USD must be nice to throw that kind of money around (away) everyone was in awe when they rolled in. What a waste almost as long as its been since my last raise Hmmm. Let me know what you think, Austin Austin, you might want to contact the FlightGear folks (the developers list specifically). There are text base services those machines could perform, like multi-player map servers and maybe even a TerraGear generation farm. -- What happens now with your Lotus Notes apps - do you make another costly upgrade, or settle for being marooned without product support? Time to move off Lotus Notes and onto the cloud with Force.com, apps are easier to build, use, and manage than apps on traditional platforms. Sign up for the Lotus Notes Migration Kit to learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/salesforce-d2d___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] carrier questions
Hi Vivian, Thanks for confirming those numbers. I have one more question for you. I am playing around with the nimitz_demo ai scenario. I see that the carrier is turning, rather than following a fixed course. /ai/models/carrier/controls/in-to-wind = false /ai/models/carrier/controls/base-course-deg = 200 turn-to-base-course = true turn-to-launch-hdg = false But I see that /ai/models/carrier/controls/tgt-heading-degs is slowly increasing and the orientation is slowly chasing that. Is the carrier trying to follow some predefined path? Is there a way to force it to travel straight? I hear your advice about flying the ball, but I'm trying to rig a specific demo for someone and a turning carrier is confusing my script. :-) Thanks, Curt. On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote: Hi Curt, Yes the centerline offset for the Nimitz/FLOLS is 8 deg, and the optimum glideslope is 3.5. The FLOLS visible glideslope arc is 1.7 deg. If you fly the ball you should hit # 3 wire. I got that from a reference I have here. Vivian. -Original Message- *From:* Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com] *Sent:* 03 December 2010 19:28 *To:* FlightGear developers discussions *Subject:* Re: [Flightgear-devel] carrier questions On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Jan Mattsson wrote: 1. 9 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier 2. 3-4 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_US_Navy_carrier_operations Hi Jan, Thanks for your reply. What I'm wondering though is for the FlightGear Nimitz, what glide slope approach path puts me in the sweet spot of the FLOLS? And for whatever it's worth, visually it appears that the landing deck is offset closer to 8 degrees. That lines me up a lot better than 9 degrees. But I'd love to know the exact angle for the FlightGear Nimitz model so I don't have to fudge things and guess. Thanks! Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- What happens now with your Lotus Notes apps - do you make another costly upgrade, or settle for being marooned without product support? Time to move off Lotus Notes and onto the cloud with Force.com, apps are easier to build, use, and manage than apps on traditional platforms. Sign up for the Lotus Notes Migration Kit to learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/salesforce-d2d___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] An introduction and what happened
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Contrapezist wrote: [snip] Austin, you might want to contact the FlightGear folks (the developers list specifically). There are text base services those machines could perform, like multi-player map servers and maybe even a TerraGear generation farm. Welcome to the deep end of the shark tank Austin! :D I suspect the fine folks here will find a task or two for your girls soon enough. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. -- What happens now with your Lotus Notes apps - do you make another costly upgrade, or settle for being marooned without product support? Time to move off Lotus Notes and onto the cloud with Force.com, apps are easier to build, use, and manage than apps on traditional platforms. Sign up for the Lotus Notes Migration Kit to learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/salesforce-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
